Even within the US, most evangelicals I encounter have never heard of BioLogos or only associate it with Francis Collins if they have. Only those who are interested in origins discussions know much of anything about it really.
On the other hand, and this is some of my concern with BioLogos == EC, if I say “Evolutionary Creationism” they pretty much immediately understand what I’m talking about. I haven’t decided yet whether losing the clarity to the larger audience is worth the specificity to those who are “in the know”.
Look if you need to use EC to make sense in your context go for it. Just do not use the term to describe me or PSs overarching association, though we certainly include EC. I’ve given several alternate descriptions for me.
How God creates
I.e whether His creation just involves ordaining and sustaining natural processes.
Whether the book of Genesis is just a spiritual account telling us spiritual truths using the error prone cosmogeny and history of the times.
In connection to the above point, whether Adam and Eve were real historical people.
It seems to conflict with a historical Adam and Eve as well as the inerrancy of the bible.
The key issue is hermeneutics… and not just acceptance of Macro Evolution.
In all Latin American countries (which are a huge chunk of Christians worldwide), at 20-55% support the statement that “humans and other living things have always existed in their present form”, which is comparable to the US.
A considerable creationist movement exists in South Korea.
Some Christian leaders in the Philippines have given strong statements against evolution
Josh has already brought up the topic of YEC, which exists not just among white evangelicals but many Asian churches as well. I do not know what the data is like among African Christians.
From my personal experience in Indonesian churches in Indonesia, it is taken as a given that Adam and Eve literally existed. That being said, evolution is not brought up often in relation to religion, even if some form of it is taught in biology classes. I’m not entirely sure why it’s not a bigger deal than it is - possibly it is because society is generally very religious, and popularization of scientific findings is not very prominent.
This is not tribalism but maybe caused by my close proximity to BioLogos. Many people expect us to be aligned and we are not, and perhaps this is a function of a small narrow population.
Point taken.
Honestly I still hope we can reconcile at some point. I’m not sure how, because they don’t seem interested. I honestly don’t know to do from here except keep inviting them into conversation.
Ghosts as in the “holy Ghost”, The Spirit of human beings etc?
It’s kind of wierd to be a Christian and acknowledge that things only follow the “known laws of nature” and there is no need of “Special Providence” IMO.
I guess we need to wait for papers to tell us Jesus was ressurrected!
That’s the universe you are trying to make … when you keep trying to “trap” God-Guided Evolution into a corner, and force it to be defined as Creationism. You do this, because you yourself try to make the realm of science do more than it can.
A second example is this one … when you specifically asked your question like this:
You knew the answer before you even asked the question… and now you are feigning surprise and offer a mild objection?
Do you really think because you are Christian you should be able to invoke science to support your religious belief? How very odd.
No I don’t need to invoke Science to support my religious beliefs. I also don’t allow science to define my religious beliefs.
Edit:However if Science wants to talk about things like origins and the beginning of the universe, it must be willing to consider the possibility/probability of an intelligent agent acting in it. This is not a particular theological position. Its more of a philosophical position in opposition to the philosophical position taken by MN.
That’s what happens when you restrict the act of creation to “known natural laws” alone. Hence my question.
Do you think it’s not a legitimate question?
The legitimacy of your question depends completely on where you stand on PeacefulScience’s use of the phrase “God-guided Evolution”?
You have rejected it as an inappropriate label … and that we can’t be discussing Evolution (because modern theory doesn’t include God), and so you reject any attempt to “qualify” the terminology (which is the most bizarre position I have yet to encounter in a discussion with Creationists).
By your own insistence, @Ashwin_s, you oppose the idea of using science to describe God-related realities.
So… if you haven’t changed your mind on such mattters, I most certainly think your question lacks legitimacy, since you have already stated your position that opposes any effort to enlist scientific terminology (no matter how carefully qualified and described) to deal with God and God’s creation.
You question doesn’t make any sense. Have you even read the post I was responding to?
This is not about the use of Scientific terminology. It’s a question about a definition of EC given by @T.j_Runyon.
Just take a breathe, read the question in its context and revert back.
You are getting excited over nothing.
But that’s not how it reads. Their point 3 explicitly allows for a de novo Adam and Eve. They don’t say that accepting common descent necessitates rejecting de novo Adam and Eve.
Right.
Yes. I started using EC years ago because “theistic evolution” didn’t make any more sense to me than “theistic meteorology”. What I believe is a kind of creationism, not a kind of evolution.
Probably true.
I very deliberately did not say Christians. I said Christian groups. There are large Christian groups like the Catholics, for example, which contain many people who still reject evolution even though their group officially accepts it.
Out of all those countries only one of them is close to the US; the Dominican Republic, at 56%. All the others are at less than 50%, most of them below 40%.
Considerable? Oh yes, their YEC organization has all of 1,000 members. Goodness! How considerable! There are nine million people in Seoul alone. The link you provided indicate that only 36% of Koreans reject evolution.
Some.
But it’s not the position of most Christian groups around the world. It’s a fringe view in Christianity, and it needs to die. Fortunately it will die over time, but it will not die too soon.
I know Joshua has assigned “excitability” to my nom de plume - - but in this case I’m being quite calm.
You cannot brow-beat PS.Org about the phrase God-Guided-Evolution (because science doesn’t allow for God) … and then complain that you can’t borrow science terminology to discuss
If you would be less rigid in the use of terminology, you could engage in discussions about God-Guided Evolution, and God-Guided laws of nature.
It is only in your own “projection” of reality that you encounter this weirdness. I don’t have such rules about how to think of the Universe, and so naturally I don’t encounter any of the weirdness either.
Essentially, I challenge the very validity of this phrase you used above:
“… [to] be a Christian and acknowledge that things only follow the “known laws of nature” …”
Where did you get this thought? I don’t adhere to it. Do you ?
Then you would realise that I wasn’t asking PS.Org any questions.
I was trying to understand what @T.j_Runyon was saying.
So what are you talking about. I don’t even understand what you are trying to say.
I haven’t once addressed this sub-theme to Ben. I have been addressing it to you … in an attempt to show how your biases lead to your disappointments.
If you don’t understand what I’m saying … I will just drop the matter. I’ve communicated what I wanted to communicate. And now you are just throwing dust in the air.